[908B64B197]

They also paid 8 million dollars and apologized to a known terrorist who brutally murdered an American soldier in Afghanistan. [0]

I wish I was making this up.

[0] https://www.foxnews.com/world/omar-khadr-ex-gitmo-detainee-w...

[sofixa]

This bullshit again... He was illegally detained without due process, tortured and confessed to killing an enemy soldier (murder implies civilian circumstances, it was a fight with US soldiers where he was injured and fought back). He recants his confession, and even if it's true, not getting tortured is a human right. (Not getting your country invaded also, but that's a whole different matter). And he was 15 at the time. A kid getting tortured for fighting in a war that was brought to him ( he was taken to Afghanistan by his father, and the US army came to fight them)? What the fuck are you on to consider that appropriate?

I'm glad he sued and won compensation.

[908B64B197]

> murder implies civilian circumstances

We can play on words, that won't bring back his victims.

> Not getting your country invaded also, but that's a whole different matter

He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.

[sofixa]

> We can play on words, that won't bring back his victims

I really disagree with calling a soldier on a mission, an agressive overseas mission, getting killed in action "a victim". A casualty, yes. If anyone's a victim, it's the innocent civilians getting blown up by both sides in a conflict they didn't ask for, not the combattants on either side.

> He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.

He says he did so to be extradited there so that he actually has some human rights and dignity restored, because, remember, he was tortured for actions he did when he was 15. He's still technically a war criminal if he did indeed kill the US soldier (not being a regular soldier in uniform), but the US had no jurisdiction over him, illegally detained and tortured him for an alleged crime he committed while being a minor.

Anyone involved with this on the US side should rot for life in The Hague ( of course that would never happen).

[908B64B197]

> an agressive overseas mission

A NATO operation. A NATO operation "his country" was very much involved in (and where citizens of "his country" paid the highest price).

Keep in mind he could have surrendered at any time.

> He's still technically a war criminal

Indeed.

[sofixa]

So you agree with torturing minors for alleged crimes?

NATO isn't the Red Cross or Doctors without borders. An overseas mission by NATO includes armed soldiers.